Disagreements between the United States and South Korea continue regarding the verification of Full Operational Capability (FOC) for the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON). The U.S. has indicated that new criteria may be necessary due to changes in the security situation, while the South Korean Ministry of Defense insists that existing evaluation standards must be maintained.
According to reports, U.S. Forces Korea Commander Javier Brunson stated at a seminar in Washington, D.C., on October 14, that "we cannot say the conditions have not changed" and emphasized that new criteria must be established due to changes in circumstances and plans. His comments were interpreted as a call to reflect changes in the security environment, such as North Korea's missile launches, in the evaluation of OPCON transfer conditions.
In a regular briefing on October 15, South Korean Defense Ministry spokesperson Jeong Bit-na responded to Brunson's remarks, stating, "If the goalposts keep moving, I believe the OPCON transfer will never happen." She reiterated that the evaluation should adhere to the 'Conditions-Based OPCON Transfer Plan (COTP)' agreed upon by the U.S. and South Korea in 2015.
Under the COTP, the two countries assess the capabilities of the Future Combined Forces Command, which will be led by a South Korean four-star general, in three stages: Initial Operational Capability (IOC), FOC, and Full Mission Capability (FMC). The U.S. and South Korea completed the FOC evaluation in 2022, and the South Korean government has been working to propose a target year for the OPCON transfer to the leaders of both countries after completing a joint verification this year.
However, it is reported that the two sides have not narrowed their positions regarding the fulfillment of conditions necessary for FOC verification. While the joint evaluation of capabilities scheduled for this year has been completed, disagreements remain regarding the results. The conditions for the OPCON transfer include both quantitative factors, such as the operational readiness of weapon systems, and qualitative assessments of mission capabilities.
Defense Minister Kang Shin-cheol explained to reporters last month that while conditions may be numerically satisfied, perspectives on whether that satisfaction is adequate can differ, indicating that judgments regarding qualitative factors are complex.
There is speculation that the issue of OPCON transfer may be discussed in future consultations between the U.S. and South Korean defense ministers or their leaders. Minister Kang and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin are expected to attend the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM+) in the Philippines later this month. If a meeting between the leaders of the two countries occurs during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shenzhen, China, next month, it could also provide an opportunity for discussion.
The OPCON transfer is discussed through various channels, including the Permanent Military Committee (PMC) between the U.S. Forces Korea Commander and the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, the Military Committee Meeting (MCM) between the two countries' Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) between the defense ministers. The final decision rests with the military commanders of both countries.
During a National Assembly audit on October 15, Minister Kang commented on Brunson's remarks, stating, "We must communicate effectively and cooperate closely." Kim Jeong-seop, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, suggested that consultations with the U.S. Forces Korea Commander are also important. Shin Beom-cheol, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, noted that if the OPCON transfer is made based on a political decision, considerations regarding potential conflicts with the U.S. Forces Korea Command and security burdens must be taken into account.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.